Structured decision-making workshop: Chronic wasting disease management in free-ranging cervids in Massachusetts

Abstract

This document describes the results of a 2.5-day rapid decision prototype workshop that evaluated management activities for chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Massachusetts (MA) that were either proactive (i.e., actions taken prior to CWD arrival/detection) or reactive (i.e., actions taken after CWD arrival/detection). The workshop was led by members of the Wildlife Section of the MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (hereafter referred to as MassWildlife) and included a group of agency communications specialists and district managers. U. S. Geological Survey staff and a volunteer acted as decision facilitators and led the analysis of the decision. Chronic wasting disease is an always fatal neurological disease that has spread across much of North America and threatens the health of deer populations in locations where it occurs (reviewed by Escobar et al. 2020). CWD can spread into new areas via two general mechanisms: (1) natural spread (e.g., dispersal of CWD-infected male white-tailed deer [Odocoileus virginianus]), and (2) anthropogenic spread (e.g., CWD spread facilitated by human intervention; Leiss et al. 2017, Escobar et al. 2020). Once CWD arrives in a state, natural resources agencies spend eight times more on CWD than agencies with no known cases; to cover these new CWD-related management activities, the natural resources agencies are typically forced to reallocate money from existing conservation priorities (Chiavacci, 2022). As of May 2024, there were 34 U.S. states and five Canadian provinces that had detected CWD positive free-ranging and/or captive animals in the family Cervidae (collectively referred to as ‘cervid’ hereafter), and the number of new states/provinces that are detecting CWD for the first time continues to grow (U. S. Geological Survey, May 2024). As of February 2024, the closest CWD positive state to MA with CWD detected in free-ranging white-tailed deer is Pennsylvania. To date, there have been no detections of CWD in MA, but testing has been limited in MA since 2012. The growing number of CWD positive states suggests that there may be increasing risk of CWD entering and establishing in MA as the number of CWD cases increases across North America. According to a 2023 survey of hunters in MA conducted by MassWildlife, 68% of hunters were concerned about CWD entering MA, and 88% of respondents said that it was at least moderately important to keep CWD out of MA; these survey results indicate that most hunters may support CWD risk reduction actions (Martin Feehan, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, oral communication, 12 Feb 2024). In addition, 23.1% of responding deer hunters in MA have hunted for cervids in CWD-positive states/provinces in the last five years (not including states/provinces that have been able to successfully eradicate CWD following a positive detection). Participants of the survey were also asked, “how many deer have you harvested that tested positive for CWD?”. A total of three respondents said that they had one deer test positive for CWD, which, when extended to the whole population of MA deer hunters, results in an estimated 32 CWD positive deer harvested in CWD-positive states and imported into MA in the last five years. When asked about how they transport harvested deer from out of state into MA, the three participants indicated either “already processed & packaged” or “not applicable.” Note, that in MA, it is a violation of regulation to import whole carcasses or high-risk parts (e.g., head, brain, spinal tissues, bones) of any member of the Cervidae family (wild or captive) from a state/province that has detected CWD; it is legal to bring in deboned meat, cleaned skull caps, hides without the head, or a fixed taxidermy mount (Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, 2024a). To date, testing for CWD has been limited in MA since 2012. However, the data collected from the 2023 MA hunter survey suggests that there is a real risk of CWD being imported by a MA resident who has hunted in a CWD positive state. Therefore, given the higher costs of CWD management post arrival, the potential natural spread of CWD from nearby states, and the risk of CWD introduction via humanmediated cervid movement, MassWildlife is motivated to take actions that minimize the risk of CWD introduction and spread in MA with the ultimate goal of managing thriving wildlife populations and maximizing hunter and general public satisfaction, which are both parts of the MassWildlife mission. A 2.5-day rapid prototyping structured decision making workshop was held with MassWildlife staff to develop a decision framework for CWD management in MA. During the workshop, we defined the context and extent of CWD management activities in MA. Next, we identified four fundamental objectives that help achieve the mission of MassWildlife and that address stakeholder concerns. The fundamental objectives included: (1) maximizing hunter satisfaction and participation, (2) maximizing public satisfaction (non-consumptive), (3) maximizing health and sustainability of cervids, and (4) maximizing the efficiency of CWD management. Then, we generated a list of five alternatives (i.e., strategies) that varied the intensity of proactive and reactive actions. The five strategies were: (1) minimal proactive and minimal reactive actions, (2) intermediate proactive and intermediate reactive actions, (3) intensive proactive and intermediate reactive actions, (4) minimal proactive and intensive reactive actions, and (5) intensive proactive and intensive reactive actions. Lastly, we estimated the performance of each strategy on the fundamental objectives and assessed the overall performance of strategies relative to one another. We did so by first estimating the consequences of each alternative strategy on fundamental objectives using expert elicitation, and then, we elicited objective weights from MassWildlife staff to incorporate the relative importance of different fundamental objectives. Given that it is unknown when CWD will arrive in MA, we evaluated the performance of alternative strategies against fundamental objectives given three distinct scenarios for time to arrival of CWD: introduction in 2.5, 7.5, or 10+ years. The preliminary results of the rapid prototype indicate that the performance of the CWD management strategies that we evaluated depends on when CWD first arrives in MA. If CWD were to arrive in 2.5 or 7.5 years from now (February, 2024), then the ‘minimal proactive and minimal reactive’ strategy performs the best on both the deer population and cost fundamental objectives (fundamental objectives 3 & 4), but the ‘intensive proactive and intensive reactive’ strategy performs best on both of the human dimensions fundamental objectives (fundamental objectives 1 & 2) as well as the minimize CWD prevalence objective (also related to fundamental objective 3). We also found that public trust is likely to remain high across all five alternative strategies if CWD arrives after year 10, but public trust decreases if CWD arrives in year 2.5 or 7.5. After incorporating objective weights, we found that in scenarios where CWD arrives in the near-term (in years 2.5 or 7.5), an intermediate strategy (e.g., ‘intermediate proactive and intermediate reactive’ or ‘intensive proactive and intermediate reactive’) performed best, and the ‘minimal proactive and intensive reactive’ strategy performed worst. Conversely, if CWD were to arrive after 10 years, then the ‘minimal proactive and minimal reactive’ and ‘minimal proactive and intensive reactive’ strategies performed best. Collectively, these results suggest that the decision on which alternative strategy to employ is sensitive to when CWD arrives in MA. Following the discussion of the preliminary results, we identified the following four next steps. First, we discussed how a more detailed communications plan is needed and would likely alter the performance estimates of the alternative strategies on fundamental objectives 1 & 2, which were hunter and public satisfaction, respectively. The development of the communication plan would likely be easier once the alternative actions have been identified along with the audience and message. Second, a surveillance plan could be a useful tool to inform CWD management. Surveillance for CWD was performed in MA annually from 2002 to 2012 (n = 4,356 wild white-tailed deer and moose [Alces alces] samples). Limited surveillance was conducted from 2013 to 2022; and in 2023, 242 wild samples were collected. It is not clear whether MA needs a robust or minimal surveillance plan (e.g., is a minimal surveillance plan enough to detect the pathogen at the threshold that would trigger action?), or what type of invasion event the surveillance plan should target (e.g., natural vs anthropogenic spread events). The use of decision trees and a formal risk assessment may help answer these questions. Third, some of the elicited estimates from experts during this rapid prototype could be replaced with empirical data. Lastly, given that the decision was sensitive to when CWD arrived in MA and a surveillance plan would rely on the mode of introduction, forecasting and predicting the CWD invasion front and/or the likelihood of different incursion events across MA would provide valuable insights.